Heroism and Societal Inequality Theme Analysis

In “Journey,” Patricia Grace plays with a common story-telling template: the hero’s quest. In this narrative tradition, a protagonist, often male, leaves home on an adventure, acts decisively in a conflict, and returns home victorious and changed. In the beginning of the story, the narrator —an unnamed old man—seems to conform to the role of hero, going on an adventure into the city to have an important meeting with city officials. However, as the story progresses, important differences arise. Instead of following the protagonist’s actions, “Journey” follows the narrator’s inaction, describing the old man waiting in different spots along his route. Ultimately, when the narrator does act decisively in his climactic conflict with city officials, it results in his returning home in defeat, not victory, changed for the worse instead of the better. In this way, Grace pushes her readers to consider the hero myth in light of widespread societal inequality, asking which members of society have the power to become heroes, and which are denied such possibilities and are forced to wait on the sidelines of their own narratives.

The narrator seems to conform to the “hero” archetype in the beginning of his story. Instead of giving the narrator a name, the story introduces him only as “an old man going on a journey.” This introduction calls upon the hero’s quest storytelling format: the narrator fits into the role of hero, leaving home alone on an adventure. Like many heroes, the narrator is going on a quest, venturing into the unknown to confront a foe. He remarks that he is traveling “further afield” than he normally does, in order to “see those people about his land.” Although it is clear that the narrator has traveled into the city many times before, this language reveals that he still regards the city as a place distant from his home, one that holds many challenges. But also like many heroes, the narrator is optimistic. Although his family members have written letters to the city or gone there in person, he is confident he will be able to succeed where they failed, thus securing his family’s future on the land. In this way, the narrator fits into the role of hero, going into battle alone, confident he will be victorious and protect his community from threat.

However, the story soon starts deviating from the hero myth. Where a traditional myth would follow the hero’s actions, the story mostly tracks the narrator’s inaction. The narrator’s journey consists mostly of waiting: waiting for the taxi at home; waiting for the taxi to arrive at the station; waiting for the train to come; waiting in the train to arrive in the city. The narrator does not control any of these forms of transportation and instead is only a passive participant. Additionally, the storytelling occurs almost exclusively in these moments of waiting, as the narrator observes the landscape on the journey into the city and reflects back on his meeting as he waits to return home. Far from tracking the hero’s actions, this story represents the narrator as a passive participant. The narrator thinks to himself that “probably the whole of life was like that, sitting in the dark, watching and waiting.” This sentiment reveals that despite the narrator’s initial optimism, he often feels disempowered in life, forced to wait instead of act. Such feelings do not fit so neatly into the “hero” role, whose archetype is based on empowerment and action.

When the narrator returns home unable to prevent the city from taking his land, it is clear that societal inequality is the source of this disempowerment, deviating further from the “hero’s quest” template. The narrator and his family face discrimination because they are Māori. For years, his family have been waiting for the city to give them permission to subdivide the land they have lived on for generations, so that all 11 of the narrator’s nieces and nephews can build houses on it. In his meeting with the city official, the narrator learns that the city has not given this permission in part because a Māori family “all living in the same area [...] immediately brings down the value of your land.” This racial discrimination reveals that Māori people have less power in New Zealand’s society than white people, and the narrator and his family are suffering as a result of that inequity. This discrimination is also clear in the city planner’s condescension towards the narrator. In addition to calling the narrator “Sir” with a sarcastic tone, the city planner also questions the narrator’s intelligence multiple times, telling the narrator that the situation with his land is “not so simple,” and wondering if the narrator “fully comprehends” the steps involved in subdividing it. Through these subtle forms of racism, the city planner makes clear that the narrator does not hold power in this meeting. When the narrator does act decisively in a conflict, as a traditional hero would, it only underscores his lack of power compared to the city planners. As the argument escalates, the narrator “[kicks] the desk [...] Hard. The veneer [cracks] and [splinters].” At this, the city planners throw the narrator out of the office. Powerless to convince the city planners with words, the narrator resorts to violence as a form of resistance. But this resistance is ultimately ineffective: although he does some damage to the planner’s desk, he harms himself more, hurting both his foot and his future chances of defending his land. In this way, the story’s climactic conflict is one that reveals the narrator's powerlessness due to racial discrimination.

Ultimately, the narrator returns home to his family defeated, in emotional and physical pain. The story therefore places the traditional “hero’s quest” format in the context of racial discrimination, asking readers to consider which members of society truly have the power to control their own narratives.